Tag Archives: Rowan Williams

A snooty response from the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury

Posted on by
Reply

Here is a letter to Rowan Williams followed by a condescending response from his office:

To Archbishop Rowan Williams:

RE: http://www.episcopal-life.org/81808_125254_ENG_HTM.htm

“Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has deplored attempts by governments in Europe to prohibit Muslim women from publicly wearing the burqa, a garment that covers the entire body.

“Governments should have better things to do than ban the burqa,” Williams,the leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, told an interfaith meeting organized by the National Council of Churches in India at its headquarters in Nagpur, during a visit to India.”

I find it mind boggling that you, Dr. Williams, have time to make pronouncements on the status of other religions when your own house is not in order. Rather than wading into the debates of others, you should successfully resolve your own problems rather than “indaba” them to death. As the chief churchman of the Church of England, you should be upholding Christian values, including the right of women to dress as they wish, not as their religious husbands order them to dress. Some customs in clothing represent the values our society wishes to maintain, and the rights of women are some of those hard fought values. Women got the vote only 100 years ago, and I would hate to see the Primus intra pares make women less equal than men in rights in the UK and anywhere else that Muslims seek to insert their sharia law into the lives of those who do not wish to live in the 7th century.

Dr. Williams, you are already on record as approving of some aspects of sharia law being used in the UK. I could not disagree with you more violently. You are undermining the rights of the Church of England, granted all the way back in 1215: “(1) FIRST, THAT WE [John] HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. . . . ” (Magna Carta). Muslims want a theocracy; sharia law is part of this desire. The mistreatment of women is also part of Islamic culture due to the Qu’ran and sharia law. If you grant equality to Islam re Christianity, do not think that Muslims will for one iota share your relativistic concept that we can all get along. Both religions make exclusive truth claims; therefore, one must be incorrect. That’s not politically correct, but then I’m not the Archbishop of Canterbury and I don’t make my living by being politically correct. I don’t think you should either. You should stand up for your own faith. Muslims don’t need any help standing up for theirs.

Personally, I don’t want my relatives in the UK to have to live as second class citizens in a Muslim controlled UK, because the way the birth rate is going, that is what is going to happen by sheer numbers unless legal guarantees are made and kept for religious freedom – freedom that does not discriminate against any women. And why is it that there are no-go zones even for Christian bishops in their own dioceses because Muslim citizens of the UK don’t want them there? Why have you not gone to bat for the Bishop of Manchester’s right to walk through his own city? Why did you allow that issue to just blow over, and thereby affirm a Muslim intrusion into the rights of Christian citizens of the UK?

You’re concerned about the coming civil war in the Sudan. Have you tackled the Christian / Muslim clash there? Have you spoken out about Christians murdered by Muslims in Nigeria? Have you spoken out about Muslim state sanctioned persecution of Christians in countries like the Yeman or Iran or …. Have you exposed for all to see what the Qu’ran actually says about how to treat those who are not of the Muslim faith? Do you really know how sharia law restricts women?

Don’t you have better things to do than suggest that men should be allowed to control “their women” by encouraging the use of the ultra religious, control symbol of the burqa? How is it that you are in favour of women bishops in the UK ( I assume you are since you allowed debate on this topic), yet support the maintenance of the downtrodden state of women who have Muslim husbands? I do not understand this apparent hypocrisy.

In Canada it is illegal to cover one’s face to hide one’s identity. This is for safety purposes. I assume the same is true of the UK. As a member of the House of Lords, as part of British institutions, you should be upholding those institutions, not helping to undermine them. You will lose the very freedoms you think you are upholding if you continue to waffle the way you do into such relativistic religious waters.

I was in South Africa in 1993, and visited the mosque in Durban when I was there. I was invited to meet Imam Ahmed Deedat, who was referred to as a “prophet,” although I thought that rather odd. This man attacked me as the “devil incarnate,” as a “racist” because I was white, and as a victim of delusions because the bible was full of lies. In the head office there were piles of posters ready to be dispersed proclaiming the forthcoming “MUSLIM DESERT STORM OF GREAT BRITAIN. You’re in the middle of this “Desert Storm.” Ahmed Deedat told me that if Jesus had wanted to prove he was risen from the dead and was the son of God, he would have appeared to a man first, not a woman. I assume you do not wish to align yourself with such misguided ignorance.

thank you,

Here is the reply:

Thank you for your email to Archbishop Rowan’s website.

I think that it is a mistaken understanding of Christianity to suggest as you seem to, that upholding Christian values is incompatible with engaging with issues arising from the presence of communities of other faiths in this country and internationally.

Issues of religious conscience in the face of State legislation have always been important matters for Christians whether they affect our own community or others. Indeed the basis of individual freedoms under God is rooted in our understanding of the nature of God and God’s relationship with human beings.

The particular issue that the Archbishop was referring to was whether there should be legislation banning the wearing of the niqab or burqa in Britain as in some other European nations. This is a different matter than whether it is desirable for this face covering to be worn. Whilst one may well consider this – and indeed some other forms of clothing to be undesirable for socialisation and integration – there is no tradition of legislation on these matters in this country and nor should there be. The niqab is not religiously required and is a matter of culture and custom and should remain a matter of personal decision.

May I correct your comment about the Archbishop as being on record as ‘approving of some aspects of sharia law being applied in the UK.’ This is not the case. If you are referring to his lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice some years ago, you will see from his text that he was defending the cause of religious conscience against recent legislative trends in this country.

You refer to a number of other matters and I regret having to say that you appear to be substantially misinformed perhaps because you have relied on newspaper headlines.

The Archbishop is one of the foremost and respected amongst those who proclaim the gospel both in this country and internationally, including giving a series of addresses on Christian doctrines to Muslim audiences in Pakistan, Egypt and Libya.

Finally you refer rather slightingly to the Archbishop’s role in Sudan and Nigeria. In relation to the former the Archbishop has not only been in Sudan to support the Church there, but has raised the issues directly in Parliament and with Ministers. In relation to Nigeria, he frequently is in touch personally with the Christian leadership and in recent months has sent a delegation in the aftermath of the violence in Jos.

I hope that you may be led by my comments to take a more informed and charitable view.

Yours sincerely,

Canon Guy Wilkinson
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Secretary for Inter Religious Affairs

The West’s new weapon against Al-Qaeda: Rowan Williams

Posted on by
1

From here:

Wrong understanding of religion and God was often the cause of terrorism and religious fanaticism, archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams observed in Thiruvananthapuram today.

Stating that he did not think that universal military action against terrorism would solve the problem, he said trying to understand why some people were driven to “dreadful and evil actions” would help addressing the problem of terrorism.

This certainly has potential: as Rowan tries to “understand” terrorists he will undoubtedly pull out his big guns and employ dialogue. They won’t stand a chance; bored to death before they can reach for the nearest suicide belt. If Rowan is feeling particularly vicious he will organise them into indaba groups to reduce them to drooling idiots first.

Incomprehensible thought for the day

Posted on by
1

The BBC used to have a program on the radio called Thought for the Day. Here’s my version; and who better to start things off with a bang than Rowan Williams: dialogue is recognition of the serious. As he ruminates on how to deal with other faiths, don’t let the rumour of Rowan’s erudition deceive you into thinking what he says means anything:

For me it involves above all the willingness to build relationships through common study and sometimes through common silence. We can’t pray publicly together, for many reasons. Prayer follows conviction. But we can sometimes keep silence together. We can certainly look together at the sacred texts of one or another tradition. We can watch how other people handle their sacred texts and their rituals and learn from that. And in that process we become able to recognise some kind of integrity and some kind of depth in one another. It doesn’t mean I say, ‘Oh well, you must be right.’ But I can at least say, ‘I know you’re serious.’ And that’s dialogue for me – the recognition of the serious. And therefore if we find we can do things together after all in servicing, witnessing, peace-making, then it will come out of depths, not shallows.

Archbishop Rowan Williams and the human sausage

Posted on by
2

Rowan Williams thinks men should be allowed to force their wives to dress like a bratwurst; from here:

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has deplored attempts by governments in Europe to prohibit Muslim women from publicly wearing the burqa, a garment that covers the entire body.

“Governments should have better things to do than ban the burqa,” Williams, the leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, told an interfaith meeting organized by the National Council of Churches in India at its headquarters in Nagpur, during a visit to India.

Archbishops should have better things to do than tell governments they have better things to do.

Rowan Williams 'concerned' over violence against Christians

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

The head of the Anglican Communion worldwide has expressed concern over the increase in violence against Christian minorities in the country.

On his visit to Kolkatta on Saturday, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said he would speak with leaders of other religious communities urging them to shun violence and promote peace.

“I am as concerned about the attacks on Christians as I would have been about attacks on people of other communities,” the archbishop said while interacting to mediapersons.

I am concerned about the neighbour’s rabbits eating my lettuce; when it comes to killing people because they are Christians a spot of condemnation is in order. Rowan Williams reserves his condemnation for more overtly dangerous atrocities, though: overly enthusiastic evangelical Christians who try and convert people from other faiths.

The last quoted sentence above implies that Rowan – based on past performance, presumably – didn’t believe his listeners would expect him to stand up for Christians at all but, using the element of surprise to throw them off guard, he did manage to muster some concern. Perhaps his plan was to use a combination of English understatement and Hegelian dialectic to startle the perpetrators into repentance.

Why would anyone take this bumbling twerp seriously?

More Hegelian twaddle from Rowan Willliams: Anglican-Hindu dialogue

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Douglas Williams is hosting a dialogue with five Hindu swamis (ascetics) in Bangalore (India) on October 20. The aim is to “to engage in discussions for mutual understanding.”

Note that Rowan isn’t talking to – sorry, dialoguing with – these worthy swamis with the intent of converting them to become followers of Jesus, but for “mutual understanding.” Evidently feeling flushed with his recent successes at creating mutual understanding between the liberal and conservative factions of his own church, he is intent on creating a AnglHindican, an abomination from the transcendent version of the Island of Dr. Moreau. Come to think of it, though, he didn’t have much – any, actually – success in his own church, so perhaps he has just decided to tackle something easier.

As Rajan Zed points out:

Rajan Zed, the President of Universal Society of Hinduism says “The dialogue may help us vanquish the stereotypes, prejudices, caricatures, etc., passed on to us from previous generations. As dialogue brings us reciprocal enrichment, we shall be spiritually richer than before the contact.”

As every good liberal Christian knows, Christ died on the cross, not to wash away our sins, but to vanquish stereotypes, prejudices and caricatures. I think that is in the gospel of Judas somewhere.

Druidry to be recognized as a religion

Posted on by
2

From the BBC:

Druidry is to become the first pagan practice to be given official recognition as a religion.

The Charity Commission has accepted that druids’ worship of natural spirits could be seen as religious activity.

The Druid Network’s charitable status entitles it to tax breaks, but the organisation says it does not earn enough to benefit from this.

The commission says the network’s work in promoting druidry as a religion is in the public interest.

The move comes thousands of years after the first druids worshipped in Britain.

Druidry was one the first known spiritual practices in Britain, and druids existed in Celtic societies elsewhere in Europe as well…..

BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott says that with concern for the environment growing and the influence of mainstream faiths waning, druidry is flourishing more now than at any time since the arrival of Christianity.

Druidry’s followers are not restricted to one god or creator, but worship the spirit they believe inhabits the earth and forces of nature such as thunder.

Druids also worship the spirits of places, such as mountains and rivers, with rituals focused particularly on the turning of the seasons.

After a four-year inquiry, the Charity Commission decided that druidry offered coherent practices for the worship of a supreme being, and provided a beneficial moral framework.Add an Image

The decision will also mean that druidry will have the status of a genuine faith.

Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, was inducted as a Druid in 2002, an act which shows a surprising degree of prescience on his part. It provides him an employment opportunity for when the time comes – perhaps it has already come – when the Church of England is no longer recognized as a religion.

Rowan Wiliams, friend of Zoroastrians

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

Dr Rowan Williams went to the Zoroastrian Centre, in Alexandra Avenue, at 2pm, where he met members of the faith and learned about their rich history and tradition.

He said: “For a community relatively small in size it’s contribution has been enormous to the life of this country but also to the life of so many of the great world religions.

“In the light of this community I feel that I’m touching some very great roots indeed of the religious inspiration of so many of the world’s religious faiths at this present point in time.”

He was greeted by members of the Zoroastrian Trust Fund of Europe (ZTFE) and was adorned with a sash by Shenaz Sadri, a member of the group, in keeping with the traditions of the community.

Malcolm Deboo, secretary of the organisation, told Dr Williams: “We believe you are a true friend to make so much free time available to us. We Zoroastrians value your friendship.”

Now, if only Rowan Williams could be as big a friend to Christianity as he is to Zoroastrianism, the Anglican Church might be faring a little better than it is.

Why speak to Rowan Williams in Welsh?

Posted on by
2

From here:

FORMER Welsh Office Minister Rod Richards has called for the resignation of the Archbishop of Wales after he told the Pope that he sometimes spoke with the Archbishop of Canterbury in Welsh to stop others understanding.

Someone should point out to the Archbishop of Wales that having Rowan speak in Welsh to maintain privacy is not necessary: no-one understands him when he speaks in English.

Rowan Williams backs celibate homosexual bisops

Posted on by
2

From here:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has said he has “no problem” with gay people being bishops but they must remain celibate.

In his first explicit declaration on the subject since taking office in 2002, Dr Rowan Williams signalled his personal support for the consecration of gay bishops in the Church of England but said he would never endorse gay clergy in relationships because of tradition and historical “standards” .

His comments, in an interview in the Times, risk deepening divisions within the church and the wider Anglican communion. Liberals will be angered by his explicit acknowledgement that celibacy must be compulsory for homosexual clergy but not for heterosexuals. While conservative ire will be fuelled by his stance which puts him at odds with church teaching.

In the interview, Williams explained why he has stood with conservatives against homosexuality when it came to official church policy.

He said that he could not endorse gay relationships for clergy and bishops because “the cost to the church overall was too great to be borne at that point”.

And the problem with this is in the last three words. Williams has made it clear that this is a move to soften up the recalcitrant conservative opposition in preparation for the time when non-celibate homosexual bishops won’t be a cost “too great to be borne.”

This has been the liberal strategy all along and, by and large, conservative Anglicans have fallen for it.